Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Naranayyan Vs. Nageswarayyan

Naranayyan vs Nageswarayyan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 03, 1893
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787631

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Code of Civil Procedure - Act XIV of 1882, Section 283--Whether defendant may plead that the decree in question was collusively obtained. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naranayyan

Respondent

Nageswarayyan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Gulibai v. Jagannath Galvenkar I.L.R.
Reported In
(1894)ILR17Mad389

Excerpt

code of civil procedure - act xiv of 1882, section 283--whether defendant may plead that the decree in question was collusively obtained. - .....a suit is precluded from showing that the decree, in execution of which the property in dispute was attached, was collusively obtained. such a defence would not be ordinarily available or necessary when the defendant is an utter stranger, in no way connected with the judgment-debtor, unless, it may be, the decree makes the debt a charge on the property claimed. in the present case, however, the munsif considered the defendant interested in setting up the defence either as reversionary heir of the judgment-debtor's husband seetharamiah or as a coparcener of his. we are unable to hold that such a defence is not open to a party interested in making it in a suit brought under section 283. we do not see our way to following the decision in gulibai v. jagannath galvenkar i.l.r. 10 bom. 659 as in our opinion section 283 does not introduce an exception to the rule that the defendant is bound to set up every defence available to him. moreover, we think it unreasonable that he should be compelled to submit to a decree that may result in his eviction and thus have to bring a fresh suit for restoration.4. we must observe, however, that the defence is only available to the defendant if he is interested as mentioned above.5. we set aside the order of remand and send back the appeal to the district judge for disposal with reference to the foregoing observations.6. the costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the decision of the Judge cannot be supported.

2. It is not necessary, for the purposes of this suit, to determine whether it is open to the plaintiff in a suit brought under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ask for consequential relief in addition to a declaration establishing his right to the property. If it were necessary to decide the question, we should certainly hold that even a plaintiff could do so, and thus avoid a multiplicity of suits. Such is also the opinion of Jardine and Telang, JJ. in Sadu Bin Raghu v. Ram Bin Govind I.L.R. 16 Bom. 608

3. The question before us is whether a defendant in such a suit is precluded from showing that the decree, in execution of which the property in dispute was attached, was collusively obtained. Such a defence would not be ordinarily available or necessary when the defendant is an utter stranger, in no way connected with the judgment-debtor, unless, it may be, the decree makes the debt a charge on the property claimed. In the present case, however, the Munsif considered the defendant interested in setting up the defence either as reversionary heir of the judgment-debtor's husband Seetharamiah or as a coparcener of his. We are unable to hold that such a defence is not open to a party interested in making it in a suit brought under Section 283. We do not see our way to following the decision in Gulibai v. Jagannath Galvenkar I.L.R. 10 Bom. 659 as in our opinion Section 283 does not introduce an exception to the rule that the defendant is bound to set up every defence available to him. Moreover, we think it unreasonable that he should be compelled to submit to a decree that may result in his eviction and thus have to bring a fresh suit for restoration.

4. We must observe, however, that the defence is only available to the defendant if he is interested as mentioned above.

5. We set aside the order of remand and send back the appeal to the District Judge for disposal with reference to the foregoing observations.

6. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial